Thoughts on Life, Love, Politics, Hypocrisy and Coming Out in Mid-Life

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Salt Lake Tribune Slams Anti-Gay Judge

I previously noted the anti-gay bigotry of Utah judge who ordered a foster child removed from a legally married lesbian couple. Judge Scott Johansen cited utterly discredited "research" bankrolled by and orchestrated by anti-gay "Christian" organizations. Johansen chose to disregard the rulings of the 9th Circuit, 10th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court that found his cited research to be wrong. Now, after widespread outrage and a damning denunciation in the Salt Lake Tribune, Johansen is apparently rethinking his bigoted ruling. As a had argued, the Tribune editorial indicates that Johansen's remaining on the bench should now be in doubt. Coupled with some backtracking and PR damage control by the Mormon Church in the wake of its recent anti-gay guidelines, the last week has proved to be bad news for the Utah religious extremists. Here are editorial highlights:

Spare a thought, if you will, for Judge Scott Johansen. The juvenile court judge in Utah's 7th District over the last week was the target of local despair, official puzzlement and national derision
when he, on his own initiative, moved to undo the proper placement of
an infant child with a state-approved foster family because the
big-hearted parents involved happen to be two women. Two women who are
legally married to one another.

The negative reactions were correct. The
judge's order was wrong. The foster parents and the relevant state
agencies are correct to be appealing it. The foster parents' plan to
adopt the child should proceed with all deliberate speed.

The whole matter should be resoundingly
disposed of just as soon as the relevant appeals court can sweep
Johansen's bigoted order aside.

And, despite the fact that the judge is apparently rethinking his position, Johansen's continued position on the Carbon County bench should also be in question.

But, remember, it wasn't all that long ago
that the transparently bogus reasoning Johansen claimed to be relying on
in ordering the 9-month-old baby girl removed from her foster home and
placed with "a duly married, heterosexual foster-adoptive couple" was
part and parcel of the state's case against the acceptance of same-sex
marriage in Utah.

As recently as the summer of 2014, the state
of Utah, Gov. Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes were trying
to convince the local federal court and, having failed there, the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals, that same-sex marriage should be banned
because any children raised in a household so configured would be at a
serious disadvantage compared to those brought up in families headed by
heterosexual parents.

The state backpedaled slightly on that claim as the appeal went along. But the opinion of the 10th Circuit went out of its way to shoot it down anyway, calling it, "an argument based only on pure speculation and conjecture."

Other appeals courts and, eventually, the
Supreme Court of the United States, also rejected the case against
raising children in same-sex households as being without scientific or
legal merit. The state of Utah has complied.

Thus were all involved apparently stunned at
Johansen's Nov. 10 ruling, an order that violated not only the Supreme
Court's rulings but also current state law and administrative practice,
which now allow foster placement in, and adoption by, legally married
same-sex couples.

After the fallout, which ranged from tears in
the home of the foster parents to a raised eyebrow by Herbert — who
called the judge's ruling an example of improper "activism on the bench"
— Johansen seems to have given the matter more thought.

Instead of ordering the child removed by Nov.
17, he has left the status quo in place through a hearing now set for
Dec. 4. If he does anything other than fully repudiate his previous
order, with a lot of apologies to all concerned, the state should have
the appeal already drafted and ready to file.

This judge's retrograde opinion on the legal
acceptance of same-sex marriage in case of foster care and adoption, if
not fully squelched, threatens to spill over into other matters, such as
custody disputes. That is particularly a problem given the recent
policy statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
denying full church participation to children living with same-sex
parents.

Judge Johansen has created an opportunity for
himself to right this wrong. If he doesn't, other state officials must
do it for him. Immediately.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

PLU Top Gay Blogs

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.